R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, Vijay Singh Kulhari is aggrieved by the order dated 7.5.2012 passed by the Additional Chief Mahanagar Magistrate No. 8, Jaipur Metropolitan whereby he has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Section 91 read with Section 311 Cr.P.C. He is also aggrieved by the order dated 30.06.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Jaipur Metropolitan whereby the learned Judge has upheld the order dated 7.5.2012. In brief, the facts of the case are that for two cheques have given by the petitioner to the complainant Mr. Sharad Mehta, which had bounced. Mr. Sharad Mehta had instituted a complaint against the petitioner for offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act. During the course of the trial, the complainant and the petitioner had entered into an agreement on 28.07.2009. Both the partied had agreed that the petitioner would give three cheques, total Rs. 49,00,000/ -, to Mr. Sharad Mehta. Moreover, a piece of land would also be given by him to Mr. Sharad Mehta.
(2.) THE petitioner moved an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. read with Section 311 Cr.P.C. He prayed that a copy of the agreement dated 28.07.2009 should be called for. Moreover the complainant should be recalled for so that he can be cross -examined with regard to the agreement dated 28.07.2009. However, by order dated 7.5.2012, the learned Magistrate dismissed the petitioner's application. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the aforesaid order, he filed a criminal revision petition before the learned Judge. But by order dated 30.06.2012, the learned Judge dismissed the revision petition and upheld the order dated 7.5.2012. Hence, this petition before this Court. Mr. V.K. Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions before this Court: - Firstly, both the parties had entered into an agreement dated 14.09.2006. Consequently, two cheques were given, which were ultimately dishonored by the bank. Subsequently, on 28.07.2009 both the parties entered into an agreement. Three cheques were given in pursuance of the said agreement. But they, too, have been dishonoured, against which a separate complaint has been filed by the complainant respondent. However, according to him the agreement dated 28.07.2009 is relevant for the present controversy. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has committed an illegality in not summoning the said agreement and in not taking it on record. Moreover, since the agreement was relevant, an opportunity to cross -examine the complainant should have been given to the petitioner. While assailing the order dated 30.06.2012, the learned counsel has contended that the revision petition has been dismissed on the ground of maintainability and not on merit. Therefore, the case should be remanded back to the learned Judge.
(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order.;